When NECO came short in integrity test

SIR: Examination bodies of worth always contract a group of seasoned teachers, and, or subject specialists within the academic or educational sectors to write items for immediate or future use for the examinations that they (the bodies) organise and administer. By extension, they are obligated to draft (with reference to our national and sub-regional scopes and with the highest regard for confidentiality) the questions for prospective examination candidates. This rigorous academic and professional activity is expected to pass through a quality control process of phrasing, editing, vetting, re-drafting, approval, and archiving. Somehow, a pre-testing of the items might be required for the purpose of standardisation. This process serves an important purpose: errors are detected and corrected before the administration of the said items.

In Section IV, the NECO June 2013 Literature in English Paper II booklet contained this as its 11th question: Explain the use of repetition as it is used to build the theme of John Donne’s ‘The Soul’s Errand’.

To the reader who might not be a literary person or might not be familiar with the pattern of examining, the literature papers have I, II, and III respectively. Paper I tests the literary skills, unseen texts, and Shakespeare using the multiple choice objective pattern. Paper II tests drama and poetry, and paper III tests the prose titles. The ‘question’ above was set in paper II and it carried a misleading referencing: the quoted poet did NOT write that poem! (The subtle tautology in the structure of the said question is even more worrisome: …the use of repetition as it is used…)

John Donne, the English 16th century metaphysical poet, wrote ‘The Sun Rising’ and not ‘The Soul’s Errand’!

Obviously the item writers and whosoever has the statutory responsibility within NECO to oversee the vetting of (Literature in English) questions have done a ‘good’ job of overlooking two vital elements: the referencing and the structure. Could the number of candidates who got confused in the examination be quantified?

Could the question of the NECO corporate image be rectified? Would the confused candidate be liable for this error? Could a poor grade or outright ‘failure’ in that paper be modified? (That question alone carried 30 marks!) Within academia, could the embarrassment this misadventure might cause be measured? Are these items standardised or worthy of being re-tested by teachers across the nation, and beyond the Nigerian waters? Won’t many other prospective candidates be further misled because it is the practice in many schools that teachers rely on ‘past questions’ for their internal assessments? This calls for a re-think.

The other matters centre on NECO and public (dis)trust, depending on the perception one takes. If we limit ourselves to item writing for examinations alone, the language and literature backgrounds of any seasoned teachers would have given them the opportunity to compare the phrasing and content (task achievement and response) of test items prepared by similar bodies across the world. It is in the interest of the NECO’s corporate governance and image to attain this level of social service and public trust. It is also in their interest that experienced item writers, examiners, and sundry employees involved with examinations are recruited and remunerated well and promptly.